All about Article 32 of the Constitution of India | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, known as the "Right to Constitutional Remedies," empowers individuals to seek justice when they believe their rights have been violated.
• Considered one of the most crucial provisions, Article 32 allows individuals to directly approach the Supreme Court to enforce their fundamental rights without having to go through lower courts first.
• Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasized the significance of Article 32, calling it the essence and core of the Constitution.

Key Points of Article 32

• Article 32 serves as a vital mechanism for protecting fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
• Individuals can swiftly access the Supreme Court under Article 32 without the need to exhaust other legal avenues.

Importance of Article 32

• Article 32 acts as a safeguard against potential violations of fundamental rights.
• It ensures that individuals can seek redressal directly from the highest court in the country.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's Perspective

• Dr. B.R. Ambedkar regarded Article 32 as the cornerstone of the Constitution, essential for upholding justice and equality.
• He believed that Article 32 is indispensable and forms the soul and essence of the Constitution.

Concept and Purpose of Article 32 of the Constitution of India

• Article 32 in the Indian Constitution grants individuals the right to approach the Supreme Court in cases where they believe their rights have been unjustly violated.
• The Supreme Court has the power to issue directives to uphold any of the rights enshrined in the constitution, as it is recognized as the defender and promoter of Fundamental Rights.

Nature of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

• Article 32(1): Guarantee to remedy
• Article 32(2): Power of Supreme Court (and high courts) to issue writs
• Article 32(3): Power of parliament to confer the power to issue writs to other courts (so far this power is not exercised)
• Article 32(4): Suspension of Fundamental Rights. Supreme Court, which is the guardian of fundamental rights in India, has three kinds of jurisdiction: original, appellate & advisory.
• Article 32 utilizes the power of original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, allowing any individual who believes their fundamental rights have been violated within the Indian territory to directly approach the Supreme Court. Moving to the High Court does not restrict them from moving directly to the Supreme Court. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court extends to disputes between the Government of India and one or more States, between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more States on the other, or between two or more States.

Writs under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

• Habeas Corpus: This writ, meaning 'produce the body,' is utilized to challenge the unlawful detention of an individual, safeguarding them from harm caused by the administrative system. For instance, in a historic case in Kerala, Mr. T.V. Eachara Warrier filed a Habeas Corpus petition when his son, P. Rajan, died in police custody after being wrongfully arrested.
• Quo Warranto: This writ, translating to 'By what means,' is employed in public service scenarios to prevent unauthorized individuals from holding public office. In a notable case involving Ms. Mayawati, the writ of Quo Warranto was denied against her cabinet ministers, even though they were Rajya Sabha members.
• Mandamus: This writ, meaning 'We Command,' is issued by a superior court to ensure the proper execution of compulsory ministerial duties by lower courts or government officials. In a case involving Rashid Ahmad, the court emphasized that the availability of alternative remedies does not always bar the issuance of a writ.
• Certiorari: This writ, signifying 'to be certified,' is invoked when power is wrongfully exercised, focusing on the judgment of the case. In a significant case, Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors., the Supreme Court clarified the scope of Certiorari, specifying its applicability against inferior courts.
• Prohibition: This writ directs lower courts to refrain from actions prohibited by law, aiming to prevent violations of authority or breaches of Natural Justice. For example, in the case of East India Commercial Co. Ltd v. Collector of Customs, a writ of prohibition was issued to halt proceedings that exceeded the tribunal's jurisdiction.

By familiarizing ourselves with these essential writs, we gain a clearer understanding of the legal mechanisms available to safeguard fundamental rights and ensure proper governance in India.

Compensation for Victims in Indian Judiciary

• The judiciary's role extends beyond punishing the guilty to compensating victims, acknowledging their losses beyond physical harm.
• Victims have the right to seek compensation under civil laws to avoid the burden of filing separate suits in different courts for the same offense.
• Monetary compensation for victims of crime or state lawlessness serves both legal and humanitarian purposes, especially when the state fails to protect individual rights.
• In scenarios like rape, where societal norms unfairly impact victims' lives, compensation becomes essential to address the loss of dignity, income, and mental well-being.
• Compensation should consider factors like mental trauma, loss of income, and legal expenses, ensuring victims are adequately supported by the judicial system.

Amendments to Article 32

• Background of Amendments:
  • The 42nd Amendment introduced 'anti-freedom' clauses within Article 32 during a period of emergency.
• Impact of the 42nd Amendment:
  • During the emergency, this amendment aimed to limit the Supreme Court and High Courts' authority to review fundamental rights applications.
• Repeal of Article 32A:
  • The 43rd Amendment, following the end of the emergency, swiftly revoked Article 32A.
• Restoration of Powers:
  • After the repeal, the Supreme Court regained the ability to invalidate state laws.
  • Additionally, High Courts were granted the authority to scrutinize the constitutionality of central laws.

Constraints of Article 32 in the Indian Constitution

• Article 33 grants authority to Parliament to modify the application of Fundamental Rights concerning armed forces and police, ensuring they fulfill their duties effectively.
• During the enforcement of Martial law in a specific area, Parliament can provide immunity to individuals serving the state or central government for actions taken to maintain or reinstate law and order under Article 34.
• Article 352 allows for the suspension of citizens' guaranteed Fundamental Rights when an emergency is declared. Additionally, Parliament can limit Fundamental Rights protected under Article 19 through Article 358 while an emergency is ongoing.
• Article 359 empowers the President to suspend Article 32 of the Constitution. This decision must be presented to Parliament for review, and Parliament holds the authority to disagree with the President's directive.

Conclusion

• In conclusion, compensation is not only necessary but also an integral aspect of criminal law. Courts should not hesitate to award compensation generously, although they must exercise caution to avoid excessive awards.
• Article 32 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court wide powers to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens, making it one of the most liberal provisions in the constitution. However, despite the constitutional guarantee of fundamental rights, they are often referred to as "unfundamental" due to challenges within the justice system, such as its complexity, sluggishness, and costliness. As a result, many instances of rights violations go unreported due to the arduous process and expenses involved in seeking justice.
• This underscores the importance of awarding commendable damages and compensation. Judicial activism plays a crucial role in upholding and ensuring the vitality of fundamental rights, and the trend in this regard is moving in the right direction. It will be intriguing to observe how the judiciary, through its dynamism, works to streamline the legal machinery, making it more efficient, legitimate, and equitable for all.